Is DARPA Pursuing "Speed" Over "Lethality" for Military Hardware?

abcnews.go.com...
(2012) SUPER-SECRET HTV-2 FLEW SO FAST IT FLEW OUT OF ITS SKIN
"DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency, has made public its best guess about what might have caused its unmanned arrowhead-shaped
Hypersonic Technology Vehicle (HTV-2) to suddenly lose contact and crash in the Pacific just a few minutes after slicing through the sky at Mach 20
last August: it was going so fast its skin peeled off.

"Two months after DARPA’s test, the Army tested its own hypersonic aircraft — this one a long-range weapon system called the Advanced Hypersonic
Weapon (AHW) designed to strike any target in the world in just a couple hours."

The logic is sound: fly fast enough, and you don't have to worry about who/what is shooting at you in flight.

On the other hand, the TR-3B proves that our militaries are also stealthily pursuing craft that can fly atmospheric OR in space, with both manned and
unmanned versions. Are we REALLY gearing up for battles in Space?

C'mon, you and I both know that "sources to substantiate this determination" do not officially exist. The military would have to be downright
stupid to release such sensitive intel to the public. For years everyone thought that the B-2 was a myth, until it came out that it was real. In other
words no one believed we had it until the military said "yeah, we have it."

I believe that the T3-RB is real as with Aurora and Pumpkinseed along with, I am convinced, other undisclosed aerial craft. I can't provide proof
so...

Uhm, no, the B-2 was publicly revealed almost from the start. It was rolled out for its first flight and was an open test program. It was classified
during design and construction, but it was public from first flight on.

For the manufacturing, a former Ford automobile assembly plant in Pico Rivera, California, was acquired and heavily rebuilt; the plant's
employees were sworn to complete secrecy regarding their work. To avoid the possibility of suspicion, components were typically purchased through
front companies, military officials would visit out of uniform, and staff members were routinely subjected to polygraph examinations. The secrecy
extended so far that access to nearly all information on the program by both Government Accountability Office (GAO) and virtually all members of
Congress itself was severely limited until mid-1980s.

Sounds like they wanted to keep it under wraps to me.

In 1984, a Northrop employee, Thomas Cavanaugh was arrested for attempting to sell classified information to the Soviet Union; the information was
taken from Northrop's Pico Rivera, California factory.[23] Cavanaugh was eventually sentenced to life in prison and released on parole in
2001.

Arrested for espionage? That seems to scream secrecy to me.

The B-2 was first publicly displayed on 22 November 1988 at Air Force Plant 42, Palmdale, California, where it was assembled. This viewing was
heavily restricted, and guests were not allowed to see the rear of the B-2. However, Aviation Week editors found that there were no airspace
restrictions above the presentation area and took photographs of the aircraft's then-secret planform and suppressed engine exhausts from the air, to
the USAF's disappointment. The B-2's (s/n 82-1066 / AV-1) first public flight was on 17 July 1989 from Palmdale to Edwards AFB.[24]

Okay, I'm no aviation expert like yourself Zaph, but that all seems to scream "secret" to me... considering the ATB program began in the mid 70s
and the B2 wasn't revealed until years later.

B2 aside, do you deny that the US military, DARPA specifically, has zero undisclosed aerial platforms? Maybe they don't have anti-grav pumpkinseeds
but I am willing to bet they have some pretty fantastic stuff that we know nothing about.

Notice what I said above your post. It was classified during design and construction.... It was a classified development, other than
announcing that they were developing a new bomber, but once it was built and ready to fly it was rolled out publicly.

That was the roll out that led to the first flight, which was also public, that lasted three hours. Once it was built, the secrecy was easier to
keep, because there weren't as many hands on it, and they could consolidate all the records for it in one place and monitor who looked at them.

I know there are programs out there, and I know some about some of them. I've never denied that there were classified programs, just that some of
the more commonly mentioned secret ones that flew for years before we knew about them really didn't.

Right, which was exactly my point. No one would admit to it's existence until AFTER the military said "yes, here it is." and they revealed it. Up
until that point in technically didn't exist, much like, I suspect, the T3-RB. This is, however, just one man's opinion.

Which is standard for most development. We've been spoiled by the F-22 and F-35 programs, which are largely white development programs. Prior to
them, they would announce that they were developing something by type, and that was the last we heard of it until it was operational, or well into
flight testing. It's the best way to keep others from getting information on it.

As for the TR-3B, mentioning that is the best way to induce an apoplectic seizure in people that are in the know. Considering that we don't even know
everything there is to know about the B-2, which is fairly white, or even other aircraft that are completely white, it's amazing that people honestly
think that we know as much about the supposed TR-3B as we do, and not only was it allowed to be released, nothing happened to any of the people that
supposedly leaked it.

"Ooh, I have a bit of a problem with that last paragraph. I think you're going to need to show your sources to substantiate this determination."

Check this same Military Projects forum for a discussion titled "A TR-3B Topic on Military.Com?" I didn't start that discussion, but I did research
the TR-3B heavily and posted what I found. It's VERY real.

As far as my statement that our most secret new planes seem to built for both Atmospheric and Space as a "bridge"craft, that is my personal
opinion.

Although a Russian General has been quoted as saying that "The next big war will be in space."

en.ria.ru...
(2009) RUSSIAN GENERAL SAYS U.S. MAY HAVE PLANNED SATELLITE COLLISION
"A collision between U.S. and Russian satellites in early February may have been a test of new U.S. technology to intercept and destroy satellites
rather than an accident, a Russian military expert has said.

"According to official reports, one of 66 satellites owned by Iridium, a U.S. telecoms company, and the Russian Cosmos-2251 satellite, launched in
1993 and believed to be defunct, collided on February 10 about 800 kilometers (500 miles) above Siberia.

"However, Maj. Gen. (Ret.) Leonid Shershnev, a former head of Russia's military space intelligence, said in an interview published by the Moskovsky
Komsomolets newspaper on Tuesday that the U.S. satellite involved in the collision was used by the U.S. military as part of the "dual-purpose"
Orbital Express research project, which began in 2007.

"Orbital Express was a space mission managed by the United States Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and a team led by engineers at
NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC)."

"... it's amazing that people honestly think that we know as much about the supposed TR-3B as we do, and not only was it allowed to be released,
nothing happened to any of the people that supposedly leaked it."

!?!?!?!

Excuse me, I have to sit down and catch my breath. You and I argued back and forth in the TR-3B discussion endlessly, about whether the TR-3B
existed. (I was adamant it DID, you were just as adamant that it DIDN'T.) And unless I am mistaken, you just admitted that the TR-3B DOES EXIST!

I found an older thread of yours, discussing some "XX-XX" aircraft, Deep Black Ops - and most of them were being designed for "high speed" too. Since
this 2012 thread is several years old, can you now clarify some of those "XX-XX" craft with actual names?

Oh - and one last question: My discussion, "If We Have The TR-3B, What Deep Black Aircraft Are Other Countries Working On?", has vanished. Do you
know where it went?

About the SUPPOSED TR-3B. Did you miss that little word? The TR-3B doesn't exist, and never has existed.

Please remove that link. That is in the RATS forum, and linking to that forum on the main boards is against the T&C. The purpose of RATS is that it
can't be searched, and isn't to be linked where it can be found.

I have removed the link. Sorry. Can you now kindly answer my other questions?

"I found an older thread of yours, discussing some "XX-XX" aircraft, Deep Black Ops - and most of them were being designed for "high speed" too. Since
this 2012 thread is several years old, can you now clarify some of those "XX-XX" craft with actual names?

Oh - and one last question: My discussion, "If We Have The TR-3B, What Deep Black Aircraft Are Other Countries Working On?", has vanished. Do you know
where it went - and why?"

As for the aircraft in question, no I still can't give more details about them, although there is some information floating around in other threads.
They're still black projects, which means that I still can't give a lot of information about them.

Thanks for your reply. Is there anything "in general" you can say about the title of this discussion? And how military projects ARE pursuing
"faster" aircraft? Or even, like my OP, what surprise problems are being encountered in "faster" aircraft?

THANK YOU for finding my thread. It just evaporated one day, and I was hoping it hadn't been killed, just moved to a new forum.

There are a limited number of high speed platforms, but nowhere near the speeds they were trying for with the X-51, or the Waverider platforms.
Speeds like that are a long way away, due to the difficulties involved in maintaining the airframes in sustained temperatures that you're talking
about.

There are pressures and temperatures associated with hypersonic flight that aren't even seen in space flight, except on reentry. Building something
that can withstand those, for hours at a time, flight after flight, is insanely difficult. That's why the associated flights almost all failed.

Here's another story in line with the title of this thread. (Just substitute Pentagon for DARPA in the title.)

www.fool.com...
AMERICA'S NEXT FIGHTER JET COULD BE HYPERSONIC, PACKING LASER WEAPONS AND A ROBOTIC PILOT
"According to the defense journalists over at DefenseNews.com, "Potential adversaries are spending big on technology, and the U.S. can't afford to
fall behind." It might even be nice if the U.S. could stay a step or two ahead. With that in mind, the Pentagon is putting together a wish list for
things they'd like to stick in a new "F-X, next-generation air dominance" fighter jet:

"For example, it might be nice if the new jet could fly at hypersonic speeds -- Mach 5 and up -- like Lockheed Martin's experimental Mach 6 SR-72.
Of course, fighter jets don't just travel in straight lines but are able to maneuver at high G-forces as well. The Pentagon is thinking that 9
"gees" might be just about right.

"Meanwhile, for the "fighting" portions of the fighter jet's mission, the Pentagon suggests it might arm the F-X with directed energy weapons --
laser guns -- such as Kratos Defense & Security's 33-kilowatt Laser Weapon System, or the new, smaller, 25-kw laser that Raytheonis building for the
Army.

"As U.S. Air Combat Command's Col. Tom Coglitore points out, "lasers have made significant progress over the last decade or two." With pretty much
every defense contractor you can name now running a laser weapons project, Mark Gunzinger, retired Air Force colonel and senior fellow at the Center
for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, avers that laser guns on airplanes are "no longer a pipe dream."

If a craft has lasers, is faster than the current gen and is un-manned- would this meet your definition of TR3B?
If so there are probably going to be lots of " TR3B's" flying around in 10 years as that is the future of war in the skies.

The problem with using TR3B as a name for any craft is that the person who provided the name (Edgar Fouche) is all but discredited by most people who
have researched his story

For any craft to actually be a TR3B it would need to meet the exact description given by Fouche- and that probably isn't going to happen as although
some bits are exotic- many of the basic principles are already understood and just dont seem practical given the assertions made by Fouche.

Just call them black triangles- every one knows what you mean and no one will disagree that there are indeed classified triangular shaped craft flying
around..as there is plenty of evidence.

You obviously know I've researched the TR-3B. They come in both manned (3 person crew) and unmanned versions, as well as Atmo and Space versions.

But I don't know about any weaponry. Logic would say they would have to have some kind of weaponry, but no one here but Zaphod58 would know. And he
firmly stays in Egyptian Mode (de-nile) about the TR-3B.

So far, the TR-3B has been seen all over the world, but primarily seems to be housed in the UK at RAF bases. It's never been observed in any
non-photoshopped combat, nor firing any kind of weapons. Its purpose seems to be surveillance and occasionally ferrying dignitaries to important
meetings.

As for fighting in space, the U.S. Navy already has their "Space Fleet":

There are several people here that know, and have said repeatedly that there is no TR3B. Most of them have simply given up on denying it, because
people seem to think that everything on the internet must be true. I mean, so what if one of the most classified programs on the planet had every
detail posted about it online, apparently the government doesn't give a damn since they didn't even try to get it taken down. Despite going through
other message boards with flamethrowers and having anything even hinting at being a classified program taken down, and ruining careers over posting
it.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.